The Boston Globe and reporter Kevin Cullen are facing scrutiny for a breach of journalistic ethics by Cullen as he reported a story about a Connecticut woman’s journey to die by assisted suicide, as well as for the Globe’s decision to publish the story after they learned of his ethical breach.
The article, published Jan. 28, chronicles the efforts of Lynda Bluestein, a 76-year-old with metastasized cancer who wished to end her life. But the act of medically helping someone to die is illegal in her home state of Connecticut. The article tells of her efforts to change the law in her home state and the legal battle she successfully mounted to be able to end her life in Vermont, which until her legal victory only allowed state residents to undertake medically assisted suicide.
Bluestein was required by law to find two people to sign a written statement that she was of sound mind to make the decision to die on her terms. In Vermont, with few acquaintances and with a requirement that the signatories not be family members, it proved a challenge, which is mentioned in the Globe’s story. She found one person at a bookstore who would sign. The Globe’s reporter offered to be the second signature; Bluestein accepted, clearing the way for her to end her life.
The ethical issue? By signing the letter, Cullen was no longer an independent observer of her journey, which is a reporter’s job. He was now part of the story and, in fact, potentially changed how that story would have evolved had he not been there. As the Globe itself acknowledged, reporters aren’t there to be a subject’s advocate or facilitator, but to record their journey.
Globe Executive Editor Nancy Barnes explained in an accompanying note to readers: “It is a violation of Globe standard for a reporter to insert themselves into a story they are covering. That it was intended primarily as a venture of consideration and courtesy does not alter that it was out of bounds.”
Barnes noted that the reporter now regrets having signed the letter.
“After reviewing these details, we have concluded that this error did not meaningfully impact the outcome of this story – Bluestein died on Jan. 4 and she likely would have found another signatory in the months before then,” the editor wrote to readers. “For that reason, we chose to publish this powerful story … while also sharing these details in full transparency.”
Tom Jones, senior media writer for Poynter, has laid out his thoughts in a column full of details this week, and agreed with the Globe’s decision to publish the story, despite the ethical breach. “In the end, the decision by Barnes and the Globe to ultimately proceed with the story while being transparent about how it came together feels like the right one.”
Not everyone agrees with the decision to publish. John Watson, a professor of journalism ethics at American University is quoted in the Boston Herald by reporter Rick Sobey, as saying: “The reporter played an essential role in this story happening. And the entire thing should have been wiped off the slate. They disqualified themselves from telling the story, and they should have walked away once they realized the reporter committed a mortal sin.”
Sobey’s report in the Boston Herald also includes thoughts on the issue from Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota.
“Reporters observe and report back, and provide some analysis,” she was quoted as saying. “But they cannot help determine what the outcome would be.”